RealGM

McGrady '03 has been enshrined. We move on.

vote: Dwight '11
He's worse on offense than Malone, but on defense his advantage is bigger than Karl's on offense. (similar situation is with McHale vs Karl)

Vote: '62 Elgin Baylor

Wouldn't mind Karl Malone winning it as well as McHale but I still think that Baylor is the best remaining choice.

Malone 98 is getting my vore here.

Vote: Karl Malone 1998.

Led team to tied with the best record in the NBA. Was just as good as he was in 1997 but with a better playoffs in 1998. Knocked of the trio of Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler and then Duncan/Drob and then the Lakers with 4 allstars. Also did this with Stockton missing games 18 games on the season as well.

Not to mention even Hollinger ranks his finals in the top 20 all time

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... nces-11-20

FINALS STATS
Points per game: 25.0
Boards per game: 10.5
Assists per game: 3.8
PER: 26.8

vote: 1998 Karl Malone

Next vote for me is between Howard and Pippen.

1994-95 Pip – the Leader

First, Pippen did us a favor by missing 10 games in 94. For those under the impression that Chicago wasn't a good defensive team, they would be wrong (All the Bulls teams of the 90s were well built defensively by that point, and in 1994 they replaced Jordan with defensively inclined Pete Myers and had players like Will Perdue providing really strong interior defense.) In the 10 games Pippen missed early in the year, a time when defenses are typically a little ahead of offenses, Chicago played -1.5 defense. With Pippen (controlling for Grant), they were -3.7. This change was on a good defensive team with solid defensive bigs. (That's with someone like Purdue out for half the year too.) That's impressive to me, and I don't see much a difference between replacing Grant with an elite defensive player and adding Pippen. Yes, he was certainly the greatest perimeter defender I've ever seen and his impact encroaches on most bigs to me.

Digging deeper into Pippen's 1994 season, he increased his scoring role slightly. Not too much, as this was not Pip's forte, and he continued to play an unselfish facilitation role (I think the parallels to KG there are good). For eg, Pip never went over 40 that season. He attempted over 27 shots once, in an overtime game no less. With Myers, Grant and Armstrong in the starting lineup with Pippen, Chicago went 44-14 (62-win pace) with a +4.7 MOV. Think about that.

His rebounding was incredible from the small forward position, posting a 13.3 TRB%, which is in the territory of a big man and 4.5% ahead of the average SF (according to a TrueLA study), which accounts for an estimated 212 extra rebounds than expected. The 94 Bulls rocked a +309 rebounding differential (fantastic, for those unfamiliar with rebounding differentials).

In the postseason, Chicago breezed through Cleveland, with Pippen playing the role of Mr. Everything. Signs of forcing it? 14 turnovers combined in G1 and G3. But this was a guy who had great floor balance in his game and decision-making and with a good coach/scheme like he had, could have be the focal point of a good/solid offense without a bipolar partner. In Pip's 72 games in 94, the Bulls offense was 106.5 (just above average) and 2.9 points/100 better than when he was out. All told, in 60 games with Horace Grant and Pippen, the Bulls were a +4.3 SRS team.

Then the famous Knicks series. The Hubert Davis series. The Hugh Hollins series. Call it what you will, but against an historically good defense, Pippen struggled in the first few games. (Not having Will Perdue literally certainly hurt Chicago). Some of this series is on youtube, so I caution people who forget the series or who weren't around at the time to avoid box score whoring here. Pip's defense was fantastic as usual and he was setting up teammates from what I recall/re-watched. In G1 in NY, he was 7-19, but there wasn't a sense of struggling or anything – he just took a few extra shots because of how good the Knick D was and because Chicago really didn't have another player, outside of maybe Kukoc (18 min) who could get his own shot. Cartwright couldn't work against Ewing, and Armstrong needed picks or usually Pippen to set up a kick out. Chi still mustered 1.07 pts/pos.

In G2, foul trouble and a bad game for Pip. He fouled out, and the Bulls blew a 4th quarter lead, with Pip struggling down the stretch. Ewing had 26-9 on 84% TS. One thing I look for in players is bounce-back games – how they adjust to a strategy or defense or poor approach. In G3, Pip was quite good, with 20-7-4 59% TS helping catapult the Bulls to 1.27 pts/pos! (This was the Kukoc buzzer-beater game.) Pippen responded with an even bigger G4 after the G3 controversy, flying all over the court and basically dominating the Knicks historic defense, a D that held Michael Jordan in serious check in the opening 3 games of the 93 ECF...Pip finished with 25-8-6 56% TS in 35 minutes and Chicago scored 1.12 pts/pos.

G5 was the Hubert Davis game, also on youtube, and was another beyond the box game from Pippen (23-4-4). The Knicks jumped out to a 15-4 run. Only Pippen answered with play after play - he knocked down back to back 3s and scored 12 points to spark a 15-3 counter-run, setting up five open scoring opportunities for teammates in the run. It was that type of leadership -- basically running a club, anchoring a defense and providing a veteran presence -- that seemed to be present year-round. (Again, Garnett Jr., all-around stuff.)

G6 was sort of a classic Pippen game. Only 5-16, but he was flying all over the place and finished with 4 steals, 2 blocks, 11 boards and 5 assists. The Bulls score 1.04 pts/100. In G7 the Knicks team proved to be too much, as Oakley and Ewing combined for 35 pts 37 reb and 10 ast. Pippen was creating, being active, finishing with 20 pts and 16 rebounds. One NYT piece described him as “sparkling in defeat,” although his offensive limitations were on display to a degree. I don't mean the 8-22, totally understandable in a game like that looking at the defense, his team and shot selection. I mean that he didn't score for the first 8+ minutes of the 4th as the Knicks slowly fortified their lead. That was Scottie in a nutshell: GOAT perimeter defender, could hugely impact a game outside the box, was a good to very good offensive player, but couldn't ramp up the scoring when needed. Of course, let's keep perspective here, he scored 26% of his team's points against a GOAT-level D without a No. 2 offensive threat.

And in that 1994 PS, the Bulls offensive rating was +8.4.

Refreshing from the Jordan discussion, as Pippen was the second most valuable player on that team...

We have to use a lot of inference to get an idea of how much Michael Jordan impacted the Bulls SRS. I'm going to shelve the defensive side of the ball more a minute and focus on the offensive impact -- that's obviously where Jordan made his name and fame. Here are Chicago's team ORtgs, RS then PS:

1990 +4.2 PS +3.7
1991 +6.7 PS +10.9
1992 +7.4 PS +6.0
1993 +4.9 PS +8.9
1994 -0.2 PS +8.4

Basically the Bulls were a ridiculously good offense in 1990. By 1991, with a few jump shooters and Scottie Pippen fully blossoming, they were historically good. They carried that offense through their 3-peat, with a RS dip in 1993. The 1993 PS performance of the team (114 ORtg) coincided with Michael Jordan's individual explosion (34.7 pts/75, second highest PS rate ever for more than 1 series, on +2.9% TS%, 7% TOV%).

In 1995 the Bulls played 63 games with Pippen and no Michael Joradan, and were a +3.8 SRS team. (+1.1 on offense, -3.2 on defense) And this time it was WITHOUT Horace Grant (added R. Harper and a healthier Purdue.)

The 96 Bulls are a preview of how Pippen is one of the all-time, high scaling portable players IMO. They are a 115, +7.5 ORtg team and of course an 11.8 SRS team for the year.

1997 is perhaps more astounding...without Dennis Rodman OR Toni Kukoc, the Bulls played 10 games and were a 10 SRS team (Harper-Caffey-Longley). In the 22 games with those players and Longley in, Chicago was a 14.9 SRS team. (+10.2 O! -6.5 D) Without Longley, they played another 17 games at 11.8 SRS.

And this sums up Pippen's best qualities: He improves every defensive lineup he enters, he doesn't need shots on offense and he seemlessly fits in there as well. He can score if needed, he's a very good creator, is an all-time rebounder at his position and even has a decent post game. The result is the same value he hold on a -1 SRS team (eg 94 Chi) he holds on a 6 or 7 SRS team (eg 96-97 Chi), which SPIKES a teams championship odds and provides incredible value. Value beyond players who wouldn't create such dominance on high-end teams.

As for Pippen's peak year, I see 91, 92 (offensive grooves, spectacular defense), 95 and 97 on the exact same line basically. I think the short 3-point line in 95 and 97 helped his offense more. I think arguments can be made he accrued more experience for the later years. Open to any of these pretty much. (95 is obviously bizarre looking because of the team dynamic shift with Jordan coming back, but that's SUCH an outlying occurrence I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning.)

Vote 98 Karl Malone

A true offensive anchor (elite scoring, passing, spaces the floor for teammates/plays off the ball) with good defense. I'm not entirely sold on Dwight because of skill issues translating to the playoffs + there's a lot of signs his D is overrated. He's still getting in soon but I'm on board with Karl before him

Vote: Karl Malone '98

Dr Positivity wrote:Vote 98 Karl Malone

A true offensive anchor (elite scoring, passing, spaces the floor for teammates/plays off the ball) with good defense. I'm not entirely sold on Dwight because of skill issues translating to the playoffs + there's a lot of signs his D is overrated. He's still getting in soon but I'm on board with Karl before him

How could you say that when one season after his peak, the Magic went from top 10 defense with him to the worst defense in history. This is what I posted before on it:

The defense was +9.3 without Howard. Based on what I've seen so far, that might have been the worst defense ever. Here are the worst defenses ever by D rating and where they were in relation to LA:

93 Mavs- 114.7 (+6.7)
91 Nuggets 114.7 (+6.8)
09 Kings 114.7 (+6.4)
06 Sonics 114.4 (+8.2)
82 Nuggets 114.2 (+7)

So the +9.3 would be more than 1 point worse than the worst defense ever.

They completely collapsed without him defensively which proved his value.

Hmm, I was going to wait and see debates between K. Malone and Dwight Howard and Kevin McHale and Scottie Pippen, but K. Malone seems to have won by a landslide already, lol. I guess I'll tack on:

Vote: 98 K. Malone

Karl Malone vs Howard

Howard is clearly the superior defender, but I think man defense gets underrated in general, but on a team level, it's not like Malone was poor. He was actually a solid team defender that rotated well...he racked up steals and blocks at a respectable rate, and although that doesn't prove he was a good defender, I think he was smart enough that he wasn't getting those steals and blocks despite poor defense, ala someone like Amare. And he was a suffocating man defender.

K. Malone is also clearly a superior offensive anchor, imo.

Karl Malone vs Kevin McHale

Similar with Malone vs Dwight, although McHale was more offense and less defense than Howard.

Karl Malone vs Scottie Pippen

This is actually a debate I'm confused about and don't really see a clear winner here. Like I said before, I think Pippen's defense is roughly equal to Howard's, but his offense is better...so how would he stack up to Malone overall?

ElGee wrote:
As for Pippen's peak year, I see 91, 92 (offensive grooves, spectacular defense), 95 and 97 on the exact same line basically. I think the short 3-point line in 95 and 97 helped his offense more. I think arguments can be made he accrued more experience for the later years. Open to any of these pretty much. (95 is obviously bizarre looking because of the team dynamic shift with Jordan coming back, but that's SUCH an outlying occurrence I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning.)

Great post, ElGee. Maybe I'm missing something here, but why are you not considering 1994 as his peak?

Vote - 98 Karl Malone

Same vote as last time.

Malone was a beast of a big who had all-time great portability. He could play any option on a team, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. you name it. Malone was a do it all type of player and could fit it on any team/system. His scoring as the 1st option is the only slight concern especially in closing minutes but it's hard to overlook his other dominant aspects.

Vote: 1998 Karl Malone

contd from last thread:

DavidStern wrote:

fatal9 wrote:

DavidStern wrote:3. In 1998 Jazz offense was nothing special without Stockton.

For whatever reason, they began playing better after the first 6 games when they made a switch in their starting SF (Russell to Keefe). They went from 2-4 to 9-3 after making this change (5 of those wins against playoff teams). That was their starting lineup for rest of the season with Stockton. In the 12 games that Malone played with that starting lineup, but without Stockton, Jazz appear to post a +4-5 offense (does anyone have the exact ortng for those games?), which would make them top 5 offense in the league.

Without Stockton Jazz had offense at 7th/8th place in the NBA. With Stockton they had offense BY FAR the best in the league and one of top 5 all time.

Also, why you ignore question about Malone's defense in comparison to McHale, Dwight and Hayes? Is Karl advantage on offense big enough to overcame defensive advantage each of these three players have over Malone?

It's a matter of preferences. Malone is an offensive anchor. McHale might be, we don't know for sure. Dwight isn't yet. In terms I see get thrown around here, Malone is like a +4-4.5 on offense and +1-1.5 on defense, with the caveat that his offense gets a little worse in the playoffs (defense may actually go up depending on matchup since Malone's strength is his post defense). McHale would be like +3 on offense, +2.5 defense, however his defense advantage is less because of his foot injury slowing him down in '87 playoffs and noticeably reducing his foot speed/mobility after that. Dwight is like +1.5-2 offense, +3-3.5 defense, and also easy to slow down offensively in the playoffs. Hayes' offensive impact is highly questionable. He has a lot of signs that flag him as a possible negative impact offensive player (though I don't think he was). Bad shot selection, bad intangibles, reputation as a bad teammate, average to mediocre offensive teams for almost all his career, mediocre efficiency (but this may not be as much of an issue in peak year) and low apg among other things. Strip away Malone's best offensive qualities and this is what you have. I don't necessarily think he was a negative on offense but it's hard seeing him as more than a +1-1.5 type offensive player. Unless you think Hayes is some GOAT level defender, I don't see how this is close.

Also, like I said before, it is worth considering that after making a change in the starting lineup (to the same lineup C/PF/SF/SG Stockton played with), Jazz were ~+5 offense (good for top 3) without Stockton for those 12 games. They were 9-3 in those games and 5 of those wins against playoff teams with Karl averaging 26.3 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 58.6 TS% . So the period '98 Malone played without Stockton is actually pretty impressive to me and affirms a) his value to the Jazz offense and b) ability to score without Stockton. You have to account for the change in starting lineup which seemed to provide a lift for the team, and also for getting used to the initial adjustment of playing without him.

colts18 wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:Vote 98 Karl Malone

A true offensive anchor (elite scoring, passing, spaces the floor for teammates/plays off the ball) with good defense. I'm not entirely sold on Dwight because of skill issues translating to the playoffs + there's a lot of signs his D is overrated. He's still getting in soon but I'm on board with Karl before him

How could you say that when one season after his peak, the Magic went from top 10 defense with him to the worst defense in history. This is what I posted before on it:

The defense was +9.3 without Howard. Based on what I've seen so far, that might have been the worst defense ever. Here are the worst defenses ever by D rating and where they were in relation to LA:

93 Mavs- 114.7 (+6.7)
91 Nuggets 114.7 (+6.8)
09 Kings 114.7 (+6.4)
06 Sonics 114.4 (+8.2)
82 Nuggets 114.2 (+7)

So the +9.3 would be more than 1 point worse than the worst defense ever.

They completely collapsed without him defensively which proved his value.

The sample size was so small it doesn't matter. And if you want to take those numbers to heart Dwight isn't near a good enough offensive player to be picked over Malone.

fatal9 wrote:It's a matter of preferences. Malone is an offensive anchor. McHale might be, we don't know for sure. Dwight isn't yet. In terms I see get thrown around here, Malone is like a +4-4.5 on offense and +1-1.5 on defense, with the caveat that his offense gets a little worse in the playoffs (defense may actually go up depending on matchup since Malone's strength is his post defense). McHale would be like +3 on offense, +2.5 defense, however his defense advantage is less because of his foot injury slowing him down in '87 playoffs and noticeably reducing his foot speed/mobility after that. Dwight is like +1.5-2 offense, +3-3.5 defense, and also easy to slow down offensively in the playoffs. Hayes' offensive impact is highly questionable. He has a lot of signs that flag him as a possible negative impact offensive player (though I don't think he was). Bad shot selection, bad intangibles, reputation as a bad teammate, average to mediocre offensive teams for almost all his career, mediocre efficiency (but this may not be as much of an issue in peak year) and low apg among other things. Strip away Malone's best offensive qualities and this is what you have. I don't necessarily think he was a negative on offense but it's hard seeing him as more than a +1-1.5 type offensive player. Unless you think Hayes is some GOAT level defender, I don't see how this is close.

Ha - exactly how I see these players, except for McHale. Let me expound: I think at his peak, he's even better offensively than you are giving him credit for here. Maybe like a slightly worse post version of Kareem. But again, at his peak, I see his defense as not what it was pre-foot. Closer to +0.5 or +1 impact. Thoughts?

Regarding the Magic collapsing without Howard defensively:

-they were also a +3.7 offense in those 12 games, as opposed to +0.4 on the season. Yes, losing Howard hurts their defense significantly, but it seems that there was also a change in focus towards all offense, no defense (which tends to happen when a team loses a star player).

-it's a sample size of 12 games, while we have literally years of data saying that while Howard is elite defensively, there are several players better than him and he's not really in the super-elite class of defensive anchors, such as Duncan and Garnett when they were in their primes...heck, when Garnett's been on the floor the last 5 years in Boston, he's been a clearly better defender than Howard.

Howard to me is Ewing with worse offense, to put it as simply as possible.

C-izMe wrote:
The sample size was so small it doesn't matter. And if you want to take those numbers to heart Dwight isn't near a good enough offensive player to be picked over Malone.

12 games is not that small of a sample. In a bigger sample, they are probably the worst without him or bottom 3 at best.

colts18 wrote:12 games is not that small of a sample.

Yes it is, and I'm not saying this as someone who has never used a sample size like that, obviously that's all you have sometimes...but we have a much bigger sample size saying Howard is not that level of defender.

colts18 wrote:In a bigger sample, they are probably the worst without him or bottom 3 at best.

Howard was an iron man before last season, so the closest data we have for him "missing time" before last year is on/off. Obviously, on/off has a lot to do with the opposing lineup that a team is going up against, so instead of using league average, let's say they went up against the 20th ranked offense whenever they went out there (random choice, not sure what the average bench offense was year to year).

In 08, the 20th offense in the league had a 106.0 ORating. The Magic with Howard on the bench had a 104.0 DRating (-2.0).

In 09, the 20th offense in the league had a 107.8 ORating. The Magic with Howard on the bench had a 103.6 DRating (-4.2).

In 10, the 20th offense in the league had a 106.1 ORating. The Magic with Howard on the bench had a 106.9 DRating (+0.9).

In 11, the 20th offense in the league had a 106.1 ORating. The Magic with Howard on the bench had a 105.6 DRating (-0.5).

So assuming the Magic with Howard on the bench is facing a below average offense every time (which I think is fair), they were still a passable defensive squad in 10 and 11, and were actually quite good in 08 and 09. And these are actually bigger samples than 12 games without Howard...12 games of Howard at 38.3 mpg is about 460 minutes. Howard was on the bench for about 1000 minutes a year during 08-11.

12 games is an adequate sample size now? That's not even one-fifth of the season. Or barely even a playoff run.

We can do better than that.

What are you guys' thoughts on Yao Ming? I know some of you guys already dropped your 2 cents but what about to those who didn't?

I think he should be coming up soon although I don't think now is the time and I do think Howard should be enshrined before him. I'm going to make a long post later regarding Yao and why he should start getting mentioned soon.